I know its your field wes, but its a valid point. I know a few dr.'s personally and they've both been driven to the point of having to rethink their careers due to medical malpractice insurance. And its a tricky area because there are legit cases of it. But its been very abused in the last 25 years. There has to be a good middle ground somewhere to the point where costs are driven down but Doctors can still be held liable in legit cases.
What Im saying on the 501c point was that I don't have an issue with them making a profit to stay afloat. Just saying maybe it shouldn't be the main driver, which it is now in Big Pharma. Kind of how charities operate - they stay afloat but profit isn't their main goal (well, actually now for some it is but thats another argument).
Won't work.
When you remove the incentive of profit, you eliminate the possibility of hiring the best and brightest. You're reduced to either government hiring people to run research labs (Jay Jacobs level fail) or you're only getting those who have a selfless desire to serve humanity in those research roles (look at the education system where teachers don't make shit and people like me who loved the job can't afford to feed their families and stay).
This is a much, much bigger argument but when you've got a Demare Carroll (who, you ask? Valid point) making $14.2 million a year while a Beth Berry (high school English teacher) makes $35,000 then you've got a society that's fundamentally flawed. Think about that. The average high school teacher cannot make in five lifetimes what a worthless NBA player makes in a single season.
If you really want to talk about redistributing wealth, that's where to do it. I don't want to, at all, but if you're hell bent on making that happen? Figure out some way to balance that equation. But even then, it's a business. People, advertisers PAY in order for the money to be available to hand Demare that kind of money. Is it fair to penalize him?
312 Replies
59870 Views